Content deleted Content added
Vegaswikian (talk | contribs) →Category:Old Gregorians: Closed - no consensus |
Vegaswikian (talk | contribs) →Category:Old Lancing: closed - no consensus |
||
Line 147: | Line 147: | ||
==== Category:Old Lancing ==== |
==== Category:Old Lancing ==== |
||
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;"> |
|||
:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.'' |
|||
:''The result of the discussion was:'' '''No consensus'''. If anyone wishes to contribute to resolving this issue, please participate in the [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools#RFC for naming of by school student related categories|RFC]] that has been opened. Once that discussion closes, this category can be renominated if needed. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] ([[User talk:Vegaswikian|talk]]) 23:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Rename''' [[:category:Old Lancing]] to [[:Category:People educated at Lancing College]] |
*'''Rename''' [[:category:Old Lancing]] to [[:Category:People educated at Lancing College]] |
||
*'''Nominators rationale'''. This is a unique old form, which in its category heading suggests that Lansing Old Boys may be the more common formation. The category name as it now stands is not clearly plural. Beyond this, it could be interpreted to be for the early history of [[Lansing, Michigan]] or several other things in its current form. The new name will make it clear what it is and what it should be used for.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 05:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC) |
*'''Nominators rationale'''. This is a unique old form, which in its category heading suggests that Lansing Old Boys may be the more common formation. The category name as it now stands is not clearly plural. Beyond this, it could be interpreted to be for the early history of [[Lansing, Michigan]] or several other things in its current form. The new name will make it clear what it is and what it should be used for.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 05:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC) |
||
Line 178: | Line 182: | ||
*'''Support'''. I used to support the "Old Fooian" form, but reluctantly I have come to see that the terms are difficult to understand, so I suggested the "People educated at", as clearer yet neutral. --[[User:Bduke|<span style="color:#002147;">'''Bduke'''</span>]] [[User_talk:Bduke|<span style="color:#002147;">'''(Discussion)'''</span>]] 19:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC) |
*'''Support'''. I used to support the "Old Fooian" form, but reluctantly I have come to see that the terms are difficult to understand, so I suggested the "People educated at", as clearer yet neutral. --[[User:Bduke|<span style="color:#002147;">'''Bduke'''</span>]] [[User_talk:Bduke|<span style="color:#002147;">'''(Discussion)'''</span>]] 19:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC) |
||
:*Is it really neutral? Why not "People who attended ..."? [[User:Cjc13|Cjc13]] ([[User talk:Cjc13|talk]]) 10:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC) |
:*Is it really neutral? Why not "People who attended ..."? [[User:Cjc13|Cjc13]] ([[User talk:Cjc13|talk]]) 10:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC) |
||
---- |
|||
:''The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div> |
|||
==== Category:Provincial fairs ==== |
==== Category:Provincial fairs ==== |
Revision as of 23:27, 26 July 2011
July 19
Category:Eleven albums
Category:Joe Jonas
Category:Songs written by Frederick Weatherly
Category:Metal-air fuel cell/batteries
Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons and Category:Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons
Category:Fairs of India
Category:Set indices on Russian inhabited localities
- Propose renaming Category:Set indices on Russian inhabited localities to Category:Category:Set indices on populated places in Russia
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. 1) Harmonize with parent categories Category:Populated places in Russia and Category:Set indices on populated places by country and with categories within the latter. See the recent 4:0 consensus to drop "inhabited locality" in favor of "populated place" for the Russia specific parent category. 2) Show to the user that the indices cover all items in Category:Populated places in Russia that have ambiguous names. "Inhabited localities" could give the impression this is a specific type of populated places, which it is not. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 12:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. Those are not, strictly speaking, parent categories. Note also that Category:Set indices on populated places by country itself was created by the nominator, as well as its two non-Russia subcats and their contents. Neither India nor Ukraine WikiProjects do set index articles, as a matter of fact, and WikiProject India in particular was even surprised by the attempt. Purposefully creating other cats to rename a cat that otherwise doesn't fit well anywhere else seems like very suspicious "harmonization", to say the least.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2011; 14:14 (UTC)
- WP India was not surprised, but I left a note there, that someone deleted a SIA page. This is solved, the SIA page is back. It seems you are the inventor of the SIA pages, which may be a reason that other WP Projects on countries don't use the SIA system that much. But Poland did already. The consensus on WP was to use the term "populated place". Yes, I created Category:Set indices on populated places by country, and did so to collect the other places outside Russia. And I followed the WP standard. On the rename of the Russian parent category you dragged me and another editor into Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Russia)#Categories:_Populated_places_vs_Inhabited_localities a lengthy discussion to then state on July 1: "As it happens, I don't mind renaming this cat to "populated places" at all". You produce a lot of drama. I am happy about the other user's "No need for drama. Amen to that.". Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- I am not an inventor of the SIA pages (an in fact have a strong dislike for them). The concept already existed when I created the template, and the consensus at the time was that the details of the implementation of the set index articles are to be left to the individual WikiProjects. That includes the choice of terminology, and that's why different SIAs look so different (unlike the dab pages, they are not expected to be uniform). A proper course of action would have been to contact the affected WikiProjects before deciding and implementing things for them. If a WikiProject doesn't want to use SIAs, it's their decision. It's a purely organizational matter, just like, say, a choice of the assessment scale is. Suggesting to use/not use it is one thing, imposing it on them is quite another.
- Additionally, please do not take the words I said out of context. While I didn't mind renaming the upper-level category (because that category is a part of the navigational system covering many countries), I do oppose renaming the lower-level categories, because the new names are inconsistent with the terminology used by the articles those categories are supposed to cover. Horizontal uniformity is mostly a good thing, but the vertical uniformity is neither expected nor practical (nor encyclopedic).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2011; 16:29 (UTC)
- That was very well in context: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Russia)#Categories: Populated_places vs Inhabited localities referred to the upper-level. You dragged me and another editor into a discussion, and at the and you say I don't mind renaming this cat to "populated places". What is the proper way of how to create SIA pages is off topic. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, it was not in context. You combined a bunch of quotes from discussions on closely related but still slightly different topics and made it look as if I don't know what I'm talking about in general. I am not amused, to say the least, but let bygones be bygones; I have no interest in playing this "who said what" game any further. Let's stick to the topic at hand indeed.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 20, 2011; 16:18 (UTC)
- That was very well in context: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Russia)#Categories: Populated_places vs Inhabited localities referred to the upper-level. You dragged me and another editor into a discussion, and at the and you say I don't mind renaming this cat to "populated places". What is the proper way of how to create SIA pages is off topic. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- WP India was not surprised, but I left a note there, that someone deleted a SIA page. This is solved, the SIA page is back. It seems you are the inventor of the SIA pages, which may be a reason that other WP Projects on countries don't use the SIA system that much. But Poland did already. The consensus on WP was to use the term "populated place". Yes, I created Category:Set indices on populated places by country, and did so to collect the other places outside Russia. And I followed the WP standard. On the rename of the Russian parent category you dragged me and another editor into Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Russia)#Categories:_Populated_places_vs_Inhabited_localities a lengthy discussion to then state on July 1: "As it happens, I don't mind renaming this cat to "populated places" at all". You produce a lot of drama. I am happy about the other user's "No need for drama. Amen to that.". Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Across Wikipedia, it appears that "populated place" is preferred over "inhabited locality" in category names.. and they both seem to have the same meaning. Mlm42 (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- They both have the same generic meaning; however, the sources dealing with the administrative-territorial divisions of Russia and especially in the context of their classification (which is not a generic topic) tend to use the term "inhabited localities" more often. This is yet another example of assigning a higher priority to our category (!) naming practices than to what the sources tend to use. Plus, if they mean the same thing, what use is in creating extra maintenance work to replace one with another? Should we rename all categories on the administrative divisions of all countries to use "state" instead of "region", "province", and "territory", too? They all mean roughly the same thing, after all, and "state" is so much more common across Wikipedia.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2011; 16:29 (UTC)
- Comment: "Maintenance work" would be to add a little bit of code to Template:SIA. - Yet another example of unnecessary drama. To call a "province" of Canada "state" is plain incorrect. But every inhabited locality in Russia is a populated place, a term used by the U.S. BGN ([1]). Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- I wish you stopped resorting to accusing me of "drama" every time you can't come up with a good counter-argument... This is getting rather tiresome. Please address the issues, not the person.
- "Maintenance work" will be moving a bunch of articles and cleaning up the backlinks (something which bots aren't very good at).
- And why does the populated place article consists of only a definition of the USGS GNIS "feature class" database term? More importantly, why are we acting on it as if it were the only proper definition and no other terms existed?
- As for the "states", I'm not talking about Canada. I am talking about the divisions of non-Anglophone countries, for which multiple ways to translate the same term exist. I don't see how suggesting to translate them all as "states" with no regards to actual usage would be any different from what this CfD is trying to do.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2011; 18:40 (UTC)
- P.S. By the way, the definition you linked to states that "a populated place is usually not incorporated and by definition has no legal boundaries", which makes it especially unsuitable for this article. The "inhabited localities" in Russia are all incorporated, and they all have legal boundaries.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2011; 21:09 (UTC)
- At least there is an article about the term populated place, while "Inhabited locality" has no article at all and until recently redirect to Types of inhabited localities in Russia. When I use google, I find mostly articles you created, either in WP or in WP clones.
- For the difference between the USGS definition of "populated place" and your personal definition of "inhabited locality": 1) Can you give an example of an item that you list in your set indices but that is not a populated place? 2) Can you give an example of an item that you list that is not incorporated? 3) What do you do with populated places that are not incorporated, do they get no set indices and no mention on the existing ones?
- The proposed category renaming has nothing to do with article renaming. Some items in the category use the term "rural locality" and there is no Category:Set indices on rural localities in Russia. The populated places set indices category is there to contain all of them. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 02:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm going to ignore the google search example, because there are just too many things wrong with this approach.
- On second point, "populated places", "inhabited localities", "human settlements", "populated areas", and a bunch of other similar terms are all synonyms. It matters very little which one we use to refer to a generic concept of a territorially limited area of human habitation with a certain designation. That's why it makes sense to use one term to name the categories (and some of the subcategories) which are supposed to group the content in a generic manner. Most of those terms can also be used to refer to specialized concepts in certain contexts; the benefit of using "populated places" is that it is probably the most generic term with few specialized definitions. However, it does not make any sense to use a generic term we otherwise agree upon to group the content in an area where other terminology prevails. Doing so is a disservice to readers.
- As for your questions, I don't see the point of #1 and #2, but the answer to those is "no". I'm still waiting for an answer on where and when it was decided that the USGS definition of populated place is the one to be used by Wikipedia, by the way. I was under the impression that we treat the term as generic, the evidence for which is that most articles in the "populated places" cats are, contrary to the USGS definition, about incorporated entities. The answer to #3 is also no, unincorporated entities in Russia are not mentioned in the set indices (but we would, of course, mention them on the disambiguation pages, when that's necessary).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 22, 2011; 15:18 (UTC)
- Comment: "Maintenance work" would be to add a little bit of code to Template:SIA. - Yet another example of unnecessary drama. To call a "province" of Canada "state" is plain incorrect. But every inhabited locality in Russia is a populated place, a term used by the U.S. BGN ([1]). Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- They both have the same generic meaning; however, the sources dealing with the administrative-territorial divisions of Russia and especially in the context of their classification (which is not a generic topic) tend to use the term "inhabited localities" more often. This is yet another example of assigning a higher priority to our category (!) naming practices than to what the sources tend to use. Plus, if they mean the same thing, what use is in creating extra maintenance work to replace one with another? Should we rename all categories on the administrative divisions of all countries to use "state" instead of "region", "province", and "territory", too? They all mean roughly the same thing, after all, and "state" is so much more common across Wikipedia.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2011; 16:29 (UTC)
- Rename. The clear consensus reached through a long discussion is to use the term populated places. The set indices parent can be ignored and the focus can be placed on using the term populated places over inhabited localities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- The consensus was to use that term for upper level categories only (i.e., "Category:Populated places in Country"). There was never an intent to rename all of the subcategories.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2011; 21:09 (UTC)
- The consensus reached out to all subcategories, e.g.: Category:Former populated places in Algeria, Category:Populated coastal places in Algeria, Category:Populated places in Adrar Province.... and many many more... I think all have been renamed, the only one that refers to populated/inhabited place/locality/settlement and that has not been renamed is the proposed one from Russia. It just was missed, because it didn't use the WP standard term "settlement", which would have been ambiguous. But Russia does now use the new WP standard term, namely populated place, for all categories but the one proposed here. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 02:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, not all of them, but only those which were problematic and those which were meant to be named using a generic term anyway. The article-based categories were left alone. Which once again brings me back to the notion that it is the titles of the categories which are derived from the titles of the articles, not the other way around. Only when a category tree doesn't have a main top level article (something that's true for the vast majority of the "Populated places in Foo" cats) we are free to come up with a generic term to use.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 20, 2011; 15:57 (UTC)
- Step by step, now you admit it was more than the top level. I think no single one of the articles about a specific place or any SIA uses the term "populated place" - still the categories use the term. In the category in question one finds lots of terms for types in the names or none at all: "X", "X, Russia", "X (inhabited locality)", "X (rural locality)", "X (urban locality)", "X (town)". Using the generic agreed upon term "populated place" for the category name is perfectly fine. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Step by step, I am leaning to the opinion that our categories which group content in an arbitrary or generic manner (which is mostly the top-level cats) are titled using the generic terms, and the categories which group content based on existing articles are titled using the terminology employed by those articles. The set index cat is based on the article about the types of inhabited localities in Russia, which is why it is named the way it is. What the best way to title the individual SIAs is, as you previously noted yourself, out of scope of this CfD and is a decision normally left to the affected WikiProjects anyway.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 22, 2011; 15:18 (UTC)
- I.e. having an intermediary category called Category:Category:Set indices on populated places in Russia would satisfy all needs you defined - the grouping on generic terms and the grouping on article terminology. But I think it would be nice you document your terminology - inhabited locality - somewhere in the article space. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- If I ask to document the statement that the term "populated place" is the most commonly used term in English to refer to that concept (which is why it is a generic term of our choice), will anyone be able to do it? Does this example illustrate the difficulty of documenting a similar statement that the term "inhabited locality" is the most commonly used term in English to refer to that concept in the context of the Russian administrative-territorial divisions? My point is that there are cases citing something is impossible, so we have to agree to use one of the options after carefully observing the usage in the appropriate context and taking other important reasons into consideration. I've presented mine. By the way, if we had an article called "inhabited locality" which consisted solely of some government agency's definition, I wouldn't think twice before nominating it for AfD either.
- On the intermediary category, can you clarify which specific subcategories it would cover? I'm not exactly sure what you are proposing. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 22, 2011; 17:08 (UTC)
- I.e. having an intermediary category called Category:Category:Set indices on populated places in Russia would satisfy all needs you defined - the grouping on generic terms and the grouping on article terminology. But I think it would be nice you document your terminology - inhabited locality - somewhere in the article space. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Step by step, I am leaning to the opinion that our categories which group content in an arbitrary or generic manner (which is mostly the top-level cats) are titled using the generic terms, and the categories which group content based on existing articles are titled using the terminology employed by those articles. The set index cat is based on the article about the types of inhabited localities in Russia, which is why it is named the way it is. What the best way to title the individual SIAs is, as you previously noted yourself, out of scope of this CfD and is a decision normally left to the affected WikiProjects anyway.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 22, 2011; 15:18 (UTC)
- Step by step, now you admit it was more than the top level. I think no single one of the articles about a specific place or any SIA uses the term "populated place" - still the categories use the term. In the category in question one finds lots of terms for types in the names or none at all: "X", "X, Russia", "X (inhabited locality)", "X (rural locality)", "X (urban locality)", "X (town)". Using the generic agreed upon term "populated place" for the category name is perfectly fine. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, not all of them, but only those which were problematic and those which were meant to be named using a generic term anyway. The article-based categories were left alone. Which once again brings me back to the notion that it is the titles of the categories which are derived from the titles of the articles, not the other way around. Only when a category tree doesn't have a main top level article (something that's true for the vast majority of the "Populated places in Foo" cats) we are free to come up with a generic term to use.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 20, 2011; 15:57 (UTC)
- The consensus reached out to all subcategories, e.g.: Category:Former populated places in Algeria, Category:Populated coastal places in Algeria, Category:Populated places in Adrar Province.... and many many more... I think all have been renamed, the only one that refers to populated/inhabited place/locality/settlement and that has not been renamed is the proposed one from Russia. It just was missed, because it didn't use the WP standard term "settlement", which would have been ambiguous. But Russia does now use the new WP standard term, namely populated place, for all categories but the one proposed here. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 02:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- The consensus was to use that term for upper level categories only (i.e., "Category:Populated places in Country"). There was never an intent to rename all of the subcategories.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2011; 21:09 (UTC)
Category:American actors of Hungarian descent
Category:Churches in Canada by denomination
Category:Black-and-white films
- Category:Black-and-white films - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: I'm not convinced that having been filmed in black and white is notable. For newer films that are deliberately filmed this way, there is already a list, but of course, many black-and-white films were shot that way as a product of the fact that color film technology didn't exist. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment technically there are lots of films shot in black and white after color technology existed. The Wizard of Oz was filmed in 1939 largely in color, but throughout the 1940s most films were in black and white. The Wizard of Oz was by no means the first film in color.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, pretty useless for older films as you say. Maybe it can replaced/renamed to correspond to that list instead. (I can see a similar problem emerging with Category:Films shot digitally within the next few years, but that's a different discussion.) Smetanahue (talk) 07:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Let's not forget the black and white documentary films sub-cat. Whatever happens to this one would impact the doc category as well. Does the nominator wish to add that to the CfD? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps a distinction should be made for B&W films shot that way as a stylistic choice rather than for a technological basis. The problem is that criteria would need to be determined for each film. --FunkyDuffy (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep As being a defining attribute to that film. Films made after the late 1890s had a choice to film in colour or not. Maybe it needs to broken down by decade instead. Lugnuts (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. I'd lean to keeping at this point. Most of these were shot in B&W for stylistic or cost reasons which may not be well documented, except for some of the later films. I would oppose breaking up by decade since that is not a solution in my mind and leads to an unnecessary level of categorization. The only possible breakout I can see is one for Category:B&W films shot after color film was available or Category:B&W films shot before color film was available but I'm not convinced I would support that and it adds the US v UK spelling issue. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's not that simple since handcoloured films have existed since the 19th century. So the choice has always been there in theory, it's just that colour didn't really become a realistic option for feature films until a certain point in time, which varies depending on genre and location (Hollywood spectacles first, Philippine 11-hour family dramas last). I think that's why the list article is named the way it is - the best solution is to just choose a year, such as 1970, and include all black-and-white films made after that. The main category does perhaps not even need to be deleted, we can create a post-60s category anyway, and wait and see if the main cat still has any value. Smetanahue (talk) 13:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- No decade division. I am ambivalent on whether or not this category should be subdivided, but we should avoid going to the by decade division. If this category is kept, please do not divide it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin As of typing this, I don't see a clear consensus for deletion (it may change). Hopefully you would be able to justify deleting a category with nearly 13,000 articles in it, if you do indeed delete it, based one one support vote. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 06:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Category:Old Lancing
Category:Provincial fairs
Category:Old Gregorians
Category:Hunchbacks
Category:Old Elizabethans
Category:Old Leightonians
Category:Old Dunelmians
Category:Downe House Seniors
- Rename Category:Downe House Seniors to Category:People educated at Downe House School
- Nominators rationale. This category is meant to be for people educated at Downe House School. However the term "Downhouse Seniors" is only applicable to those who were prefects at the school. We should go for the more broad term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose: This was one of the categories discussed over several weeks here. So far as I am aware, Downe House Seniors is the correct term. I have certainly heard it used of old girls of the school, and if there is any evidence that it refers only to former prefects then can that please be quoted? Moonraker (talk) 04:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I do not believe anyone discussed this category specifically. The evidence for its limited use is the heading of the category itself. Beyond this, where people could argue that the old fooian was part of a general pattern, that can hardly be argued here. However the heading of the category basically says we are misusing it. In fact there is no indication it is a term for former prefects, the heading of the category says it is how current prefects are refered to, at least that is how I read it. That works since we put people in all sorts of categories that only apply in the former case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment With the greatest respect, I laughed out loud at your idea that a Wikipedia page should be relied upon as if it were a reliable source. Try instead this page of the school's web site, which refers to "the Downe House Seniors' Association, the DHSA". Moonraker (talk) 04:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment If we can not trust the header information on category pages to guide us in placing articles in the category, than we have a major problem. This points out why we need to go to category names that have clear meaning outside of school specific jargon. "People educated at" is clear, the current name is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Support WP:JARGON terminology. It looks like it should be a category for current students in their senior year. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 06:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose: The use of the term "Old Xs", etc., was discussed earlier this year for United Kingdom schools that use standard terms for former pupils, without consensus. In any case, the generally accepted alternative on Wikipedia for the United Kingdom is Former pupils ... if there is no such standard term for a particular school. Rather than adding all such schools individually (there are many), there should be a test case (or two) first, so please do not add any more till a decision on those that have been added so far has been made. -- Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Support per my comments below at Old Georgians. This discussion has already demonstrated how the use of this term confuses and it's best avoided. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Support as the suggested name is immediately accessible to anyone with a basic English vocabulary. Occuli (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. Previous discussions have shown support for similar formats, as used by the schools themselves, and this category is easily identifiable as relating to Downe House School. Cjc13 (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Support. I'm fully in support of abandoning these types of naming formats in categories in favour of something that is easily decipherable to all. The proposal seems to be the best option to me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. Individual listing of what should be a bulk listing is disruptive. Ephebi (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment what other "Seniors" catgory has been nominated that this should be paired with?John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. Per long exposition at previous discussions. If these categories are to be discussed again (sigh!) then there should be a bulk listing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. Per previous discussions. It earns my contempt that that one of those participants has now decided to try and start picking these off piecemeal. Motmit (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment This is not a similar for to anything, and no one mentioned this truly unique, obscure and hard to understand form in the previous discussion because it got lost in other matters among the 380+ discussed records.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment to all those opposing because of the "Old Fooians", you should note that this is not an Old Fooians category. A form response saying that all Old Fooians should be grouped together, does not affect this category. 70.49.127.194 (talk) 04:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oh come on, we're not idiots you know. And neither are the closing admins. The fact the term doesn't have "old" in the name doesn't mean the principle is any different. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- The argument is the Old Fooian is a recognized form. No one anywhere has organized School name+seniors is a recognized form. It is totally different.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Support. I used to support the "Old Fooian" form, but reluctantly I have come to see that the terms are difficult to understand, so I suggested the "People educated at", as clearer yet neutral. --Bduke (Discussion) 19:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- This is not an old fooian form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)